(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.16 2016나2076948

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.16 2016나2076948

해고무효확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.

The decision of the court of first instance is the same as that of the decision of the court of first instance, except for the revision as stated in the following paragraph and addition of the decision in the trial as stated in paragraph (2).

B. 1) The amendment portion of the first instance court’s second instance court’s “Folow Group” is in progress, and the “I President of the Defendant’s head office I” of the third 13th 13th e.g., the first instance court’s “Folow Group” is deemed as the “Defendant representative director J”.

3) From the 13-15th judgment of the first instance court, “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the wages calculated at the rate of KRW 125,193,548, and KRW 10,000 per month from June 1, 2016 until the Plaintiff is reinstated.” Accordingly, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the wages calculated at the rate of KRW 17,932,000 per month from the 17th judgment to the 17th judgment, and the 21st judgment from the 21st judgment to the 120 million annual salary determined between the Plaintiff and the Defendant based on the annual salary of KRW 12,00,00,000 for the Plaintiff from January 19, 2015 to May 31, 2016, after deducting intermediate income from the wage of KRW 125,193,548, and from June 1, 2016 to the date the Plaintiff is reinstated.”

5. The Fair Transactions in Employment Procedure Act does not apply to this case in light of the enforcement time of the Act between the 7th sentence of the first instance judgment and the 7th sentence of the first instance judgment.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff acquired the Defendant’s position as the domestic assembly, even if the Plaintiff did not appear to testify as the witness E of the party trial, as stated in each of the Gap evidence Nos. 30 to 35 (including the number of branch numbers) that the Plaintiff additionally submitted at the party trial.

It is not sufficient to view that the defendant's refusal to employ the plaintiff constitutes a substantial dismissal.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-채용절차의 공정화에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2014.11.20 2014나102638

-서울고등법원 2015.05.13 2014나2006556

-대전지방법원 2014. 11. 20. 선고 2014나102638 판결

-대구지방법원 2020.06.10 2019나325368

-서울고등법원 2017.01.17 2016나2064884